Thailand: Fighting the "Superpower"

December 20, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - The history of Thailand
over the past several centuries could be defined by its fending off of
one European empire after the next. It is the only Southeast Asian
nation that has never been colonized by a European power. This is in
direct contrast to its neighbors on all sides - Myanmar and Malaysia
were under the British, and Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam were under the
French. Even China was carved up by Western powers.

The key to Thailand's success was committing to a careful balancing act
between projecting strength, adept geopolitical maneuvering, unwavering
unity, and when necessary, making temporary concessions to preserve its
greater sovereignty.

Image: Thailand's geopolitical surroundings 1800-1900. Thailand was the only Southeast Asian country to avoid European colonization.

....

"Empires" Still Exist, Still Conquer, Still Exploit

Thailand
in the 1800's, then the Kingdom of Siam, was surrounded on all sides by
colonized nations. Gunboats would eventually turn up off the coast of Siam's capital and the Kingdom made to concede to the British 1855 Bowring Treaty. See how many of these "gunboat policy" imposed concessions sound like today's "free trade" economic liberalization:

1. Siam granted extraterritoriality to British subjects.
2. British could trade freely in all seaports and reside permanently in Bangkok.
3. British could buy and rent property in Bangkok.
4. British subjects could travel freely in the interior with passes provided by the consul.
5. Import and export duties were capped at 3%, except the duty-free opium and bullion.
6. British merchants were to be allowed to buy and sell directly with individual Siamese.

While some may claim fears of a global superpower, a successor to
the old British Empire, today doing something similar amounts to
"conspiracy theories," not only are such fears well founded, but
ignoring them could cost a nation virtually everything.

1. 100% ownership of Iraqi assets.
2. Full repatriation of profits.
3. Equal legal standing with local firms.
4. Foreign banks allowed to operate or buy into local banks.
5. Income and corporate taxes capped at 15%.
6. Universal tariffs slashed to 5%.

Iraq is a perfect modern day example of a nation overrun by brute force
and made to concede to an entire restructuring of its economy, giving
foreign powers access to their natural resources, markets, and
population. It was absolute subjugation, both militarily and
economically. It was modern day conquest.

If the US has done this to Iraq as recently as 2003, why would anyone
think any other nation today is safe from a similar fate? And if not by
the US today, perhaps another potential superpower like China tomorrow?
Already, the same familiar lies can be heard from the US in the lead-up
to war with nations like Syria and Iran. Indeed, imperialism is alive
and well - and nations that choose to ignore this ancient but still
thriving menace to world peace, almost guarantee that they will be
next.

The Europeans, along with the United States, have become the new empire
or "superpower," seeking extraterritorial opportunities with implied
threats and installed proxy regimes when possible, and with overt force
when necessary.

Thailand's strategy has remained relatively the same - to remain neutral
and fluid, to bend and bounce back when superpowers blow through. With
Thailand's unique and enduring indigenous institutions intact, it can
protect the nation's sovereignty even at times it must make small
concessions to keep the superpowers at bay. However, with Thaksin
Shinawatra, the superpowers have attempted to disfigure Thailand
permanently - disabling its ability to resist, and erasing the
institutions that have for centuries kept Thailand Thai.

What the Thai establishment said, during the rise of Thaksin Shinawatra,
reveals the insight they have on the superpowers and what is necessary
to protect against them. Though seemingly condemning Thailand's Democrat
Party for being too protective - the Sarasonteh blog reported on two
revealing incidents. The first was in 2005 in describing a meeting
between former US Ambassador to Thailand Ralph Boyce and former Prime
Minister Chuan Leekpai. Sarasonteh reported:

According to the Democrat Party website, US Ambassador Ralph Boyce met
with former Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai today. There’s no word on the
substance of what a Democrat MP calls “a chat between old friends”, but
if I were Mr. Boyce, I’d have courteously requested an explanation for
this:

According to the Democrat Party website, US Ambassador Ralph Boyce met with former Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai today. There’s no word on the substance of what a Democrat MP calls “a chat between old friends”, but if I were Mr. Boyce, I’d have courteously requested an explanation for this:

2. Maintain neutrality on the world stage and cooperate only under [the authority of] United Nations resolutions.
3. Foster sovereignty [by] letting no country lease an airport or a strategic location.

Old friends don’t try to capitalize on public prejudice against one
another, do they? And surely they’re not neutral toward each other.

This being the Democrats, their putatively internationalist “policy”
no. 2, if taken literally, would indeed have the opposite meaning to the
one intended. It would’ve ruled in participation in Iraq under UNSC Resolution 1511, while ruling out most other international cooperations (ASEAN, APEC, ASEM, you name it) as they’re not mandated by the UN.

This first example lays out the principles of neutrality and the
maintenance of sovereignty in regards to barring foreign powers from
using Thailand for strategic purposes. Of course, under Thaksin
Shinawatra, neither of these principles would be observed - as Thaksin
sent troops to aid in the US occupation of Iraq, and allowed the CIA to
conduct its atrocious "rendition" program on Thai soil.

The next example involves "economic liberalization," and the Democrat's
reaction to laws Thaksin Shinawatra literally changed one week, to
personally profit from the next, at the cost of selling Thai
infrastructure to foreign investors. In a blog entry titled "Worse than Saddam," Sarasonteh reported:

Ong-art Klampaibul, spokesman of the “technocratic and progressive”
Democrat Party, commented on the sale of Shin Corporation to Temasek
Holdings by “nationalist and populist” Prime Minister Thaksin
Shinawatra: (Matichon)

“Dictator Saddam, though a brutal tyrant, still
fought the superpower for the Iraqi motherland. But PM Thaksin is less
conscionable than Saddam. For 73 billion baht to his personal pocket,
the PM gave both economic and security sovereignty and communication
rights entirely to foreigners,” said the Democrat spokesman.

Of course, only a month earlier, Democrat Leader Abisit Vejjajiva implied
that the prime minister was protecting Shin Corp by keeping foreigners
out of the telecoms sector (which obviously didn’t have national
security dimensions at the time). So he was probably worse than Bush
back then. Or something.

Indeed, it is recognized that there is a struggle between independent
sovereign states and the "superpower," and that selling your nation's
infrastructure out to it is detrimental to one's sovereignty. The blog
is clearly maintained by someone who believes deeply in the concept of
"globalization" at the expense of national sovereignty, someone perhaps
not as well studied in history as Thailand's establishment to see how
much "globalization" resembles old world imperialism.

The extensive foreign ties Thaksin Shinawatra had before coming into office, while in office, and to this very day have been examined and reported on in detail. His attempts to illegally pass unpopular free trade deals, privatize and sell off the nation's oil,
its telecommunications infrastructure, and contribute to the West's
unwarranted military aggression are among the many reasons he must be
removed from power. However, the empty spot he leaves, if not filled
with something cultivated for and by Thais, will only serve as a growing
bed for other invasive weeds like the Thaksin regime.

Image: The Thai 1000 baht banknote. Left is one of the many
dams controlling floods and producing electricity throughout the
Kingdom. Center is the current King of Thailand. Right is a depiction of
a local garden providing food in a self-sufficient manner under the
"new theory" or "self-sufficiency economy"- a blueprint for Thais to protect their nation from the grassroots up against exploitation from both foreign interests and local despots.

....

While it is wise for the Thai establishment to continue seeking
neutrality and guarded tolerance of the superpower's intrusions, it may
be useful for the Thai people in general to understand the true
dimensions of the threat the Kingdom faces today. A nation needs not be
xenophobic to guard against foreign intrusion, but rather, well informed
on identifying the differences between mutual benefits and
exploitation.

Iraq is the ultimate example of what can happen to a nation unable to
balance, bend, and bounce back against aggressive foreign interests.
Thailand, on the other hand, illustrates no matter how well you play the
game of keeping foreign aggressors outside the gates, the greatest
danger remains those within who would willfully undermine your defenses
and let the enemy in.

It was Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC) in the timeless "The Traitor is the Plague" who said:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot
survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and carries his banner openly.

But the traitor
moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling
through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to
his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to
the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul
of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the
pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no
longer resist.

A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

How can Thailand prevent another "Thaksin" from simply taking his place?
How can Thais be sure their nation is simply playing the game in the
best interests of the Kingdom, and not instead selling the nation out?